A matter of relationships?

Mike Flynn on TAN 12: Design

This TAN is a brave and positive attempt to meet the expressed needs of many people involved in development and planning in Wales. If used as an aid to decision-making, rather than as a rigid reference book, it should, once it has been refined, be very helpful indeed. In particular, it needs to adopt a more encouraging approach to innovative design, and to be realistic about the capacities of local planning authorities.
   The early section on “defining design” offers a view of design that that is focussed on “relationships” between the component parts of the built environment.
   Surely, though, design is above all a creative process, producing building and landscape forms that meet the needs or dictates of clients, whether private or public? To wide a definition may create more problems than it solves. I am worried about the reference to relationships between different parts of settlements in this context, and even more so by the reference to biodiversity (which seems stuck in in order to tick off connections with sustainability strategies).
   The very wide scope of the guidance is also reflected in the suggestion (para. 2.2) that design (and here the reference is to urban design) should also take in the relationship of elements of the built and natural environment with movement patterns and access issues, the social environment, the use of energy and natural resources, and economic opportunities. It seems to me that the claim is being made that “design” covers virtually the whole of physical planning and architecture, not to mention engineering! This may, in an ideal world be so, but is this broad approach going to be useful or manageable in practice? It might be better to define “design” more narrowly, and perhaps consider offering a “good practice” guide on the more general issues associated with urban design — on the line of the DETR manual? (By Design: urban design in the planning system: (June 2000).
    The TAN sets at the heart of the design process “the requirement to contribute to the objectives of sustainable development and holistic design response” and goes on to consider the implications of successful design as a multidisciplinary activity involving collaboration and a shared ambition for quality. The planning system, it is suggested, should be pro-active in raising design awareness and design standards. This section needs to recognise the distinctive roles played by different actors and professionals — landscapist, architect, engineer, planner, and client. It may well be that acting on behalf of a client design can be multidisciplinary, and such a client-side team would work closely with planners and designers in local planning authorities. But does this really amount to “integrated working”? There are two clear roles; one “proposing”, the other “disposing”. The process has in it the distinct potential for conflict — creative or otherwise — and we should not be afraid of this. The TAN envisages an integrated approach that produces consensual design solutions, but in the real world this way of working runs the risk of stifling innovation and creativity, although it might offer planners a quieter life!
   There is a lack of clarity, then, about the roles that local planning authorities can perform in the fields of planning and design. Primarily, they are the plan-makers and control authorities for development proposals. Secondly, they can and do carry out developments of their own. Some of these are buildings, where the same clarity of role between designer and planner is required as is the case with private sector schemes. Some local authority developments are infrastructure projects (notably highways and public realm works); and these warrant a much wider approach to partnership and public involvement. Thirdly, they have a promotional role to play in encouraging design awareness and enabling applicants and the public to access design advice.
    I am concerned in other respects about the expectations placed by the TAN on local authorities. Do we really want design statements for all planning applications? The bulk of proposals are, after all, householder schemes, and unlikely to raise serious design issues. This aspect of the TAN needs to be qualified in order to enable development controllers to develop a degree of creativity and flexibility in assisting applicants at the lower end of the development scale to get through the process without too much red tape. An alternative approach would be to enable planners to require a design statement from any scheme, however small, where they identify the need for care in relation to context. Design statements should be required, of course, for any large scheme.
   Context appraisal is emphasised by the TAN as a means of meeting design objectives that are a familiar part of the urban design lexicon.
   However, the approach taken may be too prescriptive; it sounds sensible, but its tone is cautious. Not enough emphasis is placed on the creative role of design.
   For instance, the phrasing of the discussion of context appraisal and local character appears to risk a stifling of innovative design within contexts which are recognised as strong in character and identity? Many older towns and villages have achieved their character contingently and exhibit a great variety of form, building type and building style. We like them because we are used to them! The guidance that opportunities for innovative design will depend on existing context and the degree to which the “historic, architectural or social characteristics of an area” may “demand or inhibit a particular design solution” is less flexible than existing advice that new design can “enhance” a conservation area.
  The TAN seems to veer towards “preservation” rather than enhancement in historic contexts. It is, however, often helpful in suggesting ways in which sustainable design solutions can be identified with respect to themes such as inclusion, disability, movement, and regeneration, and topics such as signage, and public art. But the discussion of “historical environment” at this point continues to be conservative.
   If development in such contexts is to be more restrictive, the “historic environment” needs finer definition. The suggestion that “it may be appropriate to abandon conventional design solutions in favour of a more imaginative approach in the context of listed buildings and the wider historic environment” is the strongest reference to a creative approach; this brave notion needs to run through the whole advice note, rather than be half-buried.
   The TAN emphasises the need for local authorities to have access to professional design skills. This is important, but it is going to cost. Welsh planning departments are underfunded and understaffed , and often lack planners with design training.
   It is suggested that councils could use independent design panels on an ad hoc basis, but has this issue been properly thought through? Who would be on such a panel? Who is going to have the authority to give such advice? There are issues of professional accountability and propriety here, as well as funding. Wales is a very small country, and I suspect that the last thing we need, given a small professional pool, is a group that goes round labelling ideas “good” or “bad”. The approach needs to be defined as facilitative rather than prescriptive.
    A further important aspect of the guidance relates to housing design and layout. It is ironic, looking at contemporary housing design proposals, to note the death of “Radburn” and the concept of creating vehicle-free spaces in housing layouts. There surely does need to be some design requirement to create layouts in ways that provide safe vehicle-free space and to integrate housing with local open space. The TAN’s overriding concern is to promote housing design that establishes a “sense of place and community”, with the movement network used to enhance these qualities, and much that follows is worthy and common sense. The real problem is that development land values have blocked such design options from our minds. Look, for instance, at Penarth Marina, an example of greedy housing layout at the expense of high quality public realm and landscaping related to the water frontage. We seem unable to emulate the Victorians and their capacity to integrate parkland and housing. We are wedded to a zonal approach to both housing and open space, and this really needs to be overcome. The TAN, or something like it, could be a campaigning demand for creative housing design.
   To sum up, we need guidance that gives good practical advice to planners and applicants. But we also need to find a vehicle that allows the inclusive approach to planning policy developed by the Assembly to find expression in documents that are visionary and innovative in their stance on quality and sustainability in the built environment. As it stands, the TAN is generally welcome, but it is reticent where there is a need to give a lead by championing creativity and asserting a Welsh dimension (lacking so far) to design.

References
Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, By design: urban design in the planning system (June 200
National Assembly, Consultation Draft: Planning Guidance (Wales) Revised Technical Advice Note (Wales) 12 “Design”

The consultation ends on 10 September 2001.

Siarlys Evans on TAN 12 read